We’re pretty happy with the response overall. But there is one change I’d like to discuss with you guys: THE WHEEL.

Who am I?

I’m Brad Wardell. I wrote the original GalCiv for OS/2 and much of GalCiv I and GalCiv II. I also designed those games and wrote their AIs. On GalCiv III I’ve been more of an executive consultant thus far as I’ve been focusing on Ashes of the Singularity for the past couple of years. But GalCiv remains my baby. I’ve spent over 20 years with it. So it matters a lot to me.

Background

In GalCiv III 1.0 through 1.3 players could go to the planetary governor and override the global spending priorities on a planetary basis. This made micro-managers very happy and people who don’t like to micro manage very sad.

Planetary Wheel: Love & Hate

I am in the camp of hating it. HATING it. Not because of the micromanagement because it completely violates what GalCiv has always been about: You are running a galactic civilization. It’s supposed to be half simulation, half strategy game. The wheel is totally gamey. No civilization functions where last being can be assigned a job by the government.

I have tried to stay reasonably hands off on GalCiv III but the planetary wheel had to go. I wanted it out for 1.1, then 1.2, then 1.3 but other things took priority and it was finally killed in 1.4.

It has NOTHING to do with the AI

I read the forums and I see people talking about the change being made to make the AI easier. That’s a ridiculous argument. Not to be mean but only a non-programmer would say that. Micro-managing is what AIs do best. I could write up an AI that could tweak planetary wheels every turn to a level that would make most micro managers weep.

Put another way: computers are faster and better at math than humans and the planetary wheel was all about math.

The reason the AI didn’t use the planetary wheel in previous versions is because it was supposed to be eliminated long ago. So there was no point writing AI for this if the feature was going to go away.

It is my game but it is also YOUR game

Now, that said, I write games for you guys. That’s what motivates me. I see people who really liked the planetary wheel. So we need some sort of solution that will make both groups happy.

What I’m going to ask is that a prefs.ini setting called planetarywheel=on be added. If that’s on, you’ll get your wheel. However, that won’t be the official version of the game. There will be no in-game UI option to turn it on. People who are passionate about this feature can still turn it on without everyone else feeling like they have to use this feature in order to micro-manage their empire to the nth degree.

I know that solution won’t make everyone happy. No solution will. But hopefully this will be a reasonable compromise for most people.

If you go to the SPORUM, you will see that people are still very active in it.

SPORE was ripped to absolute shreds by most players after it came out, and was named Most Disappointing Game of the Year from about half a dozen different outlets. It's one of the great all-time examples of a game that was utterly hollowed-out by dumbing down; the pre-release versions were aggressively scientifically accurate and many players were furious with how the game ended up.

The thing about SPORE is, the game itself isn't popular, and never really has been. No-one really bothers to play it, because it's so mind-meltingly shallow and the first four stages are interminably mini-games. The Creature Creator and the house and vehicle designing and stuff are the heart of the community; actually playing the game is pretty marginal. It'd be kind of like if SD chose to forget all that boring empire-building stuff and just focus on GC3 as a Ship Printing Simulator.

It's just not a game that I'd mention in a positive light on a 4X forum, since the odds are it'd cause a flame war. Similar things can be said for MOO3 - there's actually still a dedicated community to that game, and buried under all the crap is a very good, very deep grand strategy. But just bringing it up on most forums is inviting a world of hurt.

I am in the camp of hating it. HATING it. Not because of the micromanagement because it completely violates what GalCiv has always been about: You are running a galactic civilization. It’s supposed to be half simulation, half strategy game. The wheel is totally gamey. No civilization functions where last being can be assigned a job by the government.

Never thought of it that way. That really depends on perspective. I really thought you had to balance game between realism, player usuability which is changing now that older gamers are popping up, and Ai. Player usuability is sometimes not realistic.

I read the forums and I see people talking about the change being made to make the AI easier. That’s a ridiculous argument. Not to be mean but only a non-programmer would say that. Micro-managing is what AIs do best. I could write up an AI that could tweak planetary wheels every turn to a level that would make most micro managers weep.

Put another way: computers are faster and better at math than humans and the planetary wheel was all about math. n previous versions is because it was supposed to be eliminated long ago. So there was no point writing AI for this if the feature was going to go away.

Always felt that way about the Ai. Just couldn't understand why it didn't play like that. Computer also makes descent decision capability. It also has descent comparison capability. Writing the code is kind of tedious though. Easier now that it's not linear. This does require a lot of searching and remembering. If you added an ability to remember user input not for holding past grudges, but just predicting playstyle for how the computer plays. Unless John Nash is wrong with his gaming theory averaging moves should work better The civ screen in two would work nicely for kind of categorizing, and checking up on players playstyle without changing the Ai. that much. You would still do the strategies the same now specializing tactics. Have you ever had something that won't stop bugging you!!!

What I’m going to ask is that a prefs.ini setting called planetarywheel=on be added. If that’s on, you’ll get your wheel. However, that won’t be the official version of the game. There will be no in-game UI option to turn it on. People who are passionate about this feature can still turn it on without everyone else feeling like they have to use this feature in order to micro-manage their empire to the nth degree.

I know that solution won’t make everyone happy. No solution will. But hopefully this will be a reasonable compromise for most people.

I've noticed that to every issue seems to have two sides. I'm Ok. with the compromise. I also like the idea of making the mods as flexible as possible unlike the game it's really up to the modders to decide how the game should be implemented. Can you also explain how to do this since I'm working on my first mod. All it has right now is no limit to habitable planets on the game. I noticed that a lot of files are missing.

As someone who works in Public Relations, I must thank you for such a well thought out and kind post. I'm not a fan of the wheel but am sure this will make people happy- just like a no doubt in-progress Diplomacy Update and more DLC will make me happy!

[/quote]That surprises me also how much you really respond to how people post.

Can we get the Production slider on the planetary level that lets us focus Civilian/Military rather than just the super project?

There are times when i want to focus more on military or more on infrastructure... and making it so I can only be building ships at max if I am not building any infrastructure seems to defeat the whole reason we moved the shipyards off of the planets.

I like the idea it's kind of what we had in two, but for planets instead, ir at least make that a modding option. If we are talking about modding options how about bringing back taxation, space creatures, combined research, or creating your own tech tree out of existing options in game, like all the possible tech paths. The colony screen from two. We are talking about modding anyways.

Why? It's an option that can be toggled on or off, defaulting to off, and unsupported by SD. If you don't want to use it, then it will have no impact on your life whatsoever. What possible reason is there for objecting to that?

A good change is not one where even the supporters think it's the worse option when given a direct choice. It has good balance implications; this needs to be recognized (and should be stressed far more to those disappointed by the wheel's disappearance), but we also need to recognize that removing player freedom was not the only way to achieve that, and that using UI changes to address balance issues is never a good solution.

I disagree. I think that making modding as flexable as possible would make for better mods, and I'm pro wheel lets not remove it entirely, and if you can improve it later go ahead. Remember it's not like the game is already out. All they are doing is refining it. It's already made.

Micro-managing is what AIs do best. I could write up an AI that could tweak planetary wheels every turn to a level that would make most micro managers weep. Put another way: computers are faster and better at math than humans and the planetary wheel was all about math. The reason the AI didn’t use the planetary wheel in previous versions is because it was supposed to be eliminated long ago. So there was no point writing AI for this if the feature was going to go away.

Then you simply should have made these AI tweaks. Let the AI outsmart the human player with his raw computational powers. Then, you wouldn't have to give the AI such enormous difficulty bonuses/handicaps because the AI could work them out for himself via planetary specialization. There are alot of players around who despise such handicaps as "cheats" and see them as proof of weak AI coding

Also not my opinion as far as coding, but also to my opinion I think making a more difficult Ai. at higher levels is a better leveling up system than cheats, or whatever else you call it. I also think that no one should complain that a game is to hard; until at least 6 months of regularly playing, if they do they are doing the game a great disservice. You can complain it's to easy; because it shouldn't be that until you have been playing the game a really long time.

In contrast noone accuses a chess computer to be cheating because everyone knows they have no trouble to fully calculate 5,6,10... turns in advance in regions where humans naturally will get lost... and that's practically the only measurement of diff levels in chess.

Have you read my Ai. post on Joe user forums I would like your input. The galciv equivalent to this is probably where the computer averages what you do for so many turns per turn per game. Not to hold against you, but to dictate on how it plays against you. Game two had a nice civilization screen, and espionage for helping it to do this if the programmers decided to implement this.

Now in GalCiv there are so many fields where a human player has tremendous advantages which he can exploit for his own purposes it would just be more than fair if the AI would do these kinds of calculations....

Indeed; it was particularly galling, when faced with the atrocious AI and the obvious use of handicaps, to be told by Paul that SD couldn't teach the AI to specialize because 'it would be so good at it that people would think it was cheating'. Oh, so the AI playing well would be cheating,

but obviously handing the AI giant cash grants every dozen turns and tripling it's production is OK? That's a little bit patronizing, frankly, because it implies that the player base are too stupid to recognize the difference between good play and blatant cheating.

If you are not cheating Ai. then it doesn't matter if people think the Ai. is cheating when it's not; again how long have they been playing the game when they stated this. this may have been more of an issue of not knowing how the game works. Hears a novelty idea Stardock, if the Ai. wasn't cheating hear why didn't you make this the harder level instead of worrying about false misconceptions, or Yes it would just be easier to cheat at higher levels, and call them economic bonuses.

I will be having them implement a system that I think will make everyone happy. The production wheel will become a racial trait and I'm going to ask that the concept of coercion be implemented (it'll affect morale). You want to command your citizens what to do globally or locally? Fine. But don't expect your citizens to like it.

Now, this is VERY interesting, as it will increase race diversity as well as player's freedom.

I imagine the morale penalty to scale with the race (it should have zero effect on the Yor) and the specific choices you make (the Iridiums, for example, should be more than happy to work in the stock exchanges, but become extremely irritated if you force them in an assembly line).

I used the wheel religiously; but I can see the merit in getting rid of it. Micromanaging everything on a huge map took an inordinate amount of time and using the wheel to its full potential took a lot of my time.

You could make the argument that it should be left in for people who want to use it; but if it was in the game I would feel compelled to use it and I don't see how you could balance the game in such a way that an AI built for the standard system wouldn't get its butt kicked by players using the wheel to min/max.

Including it in the options menu for players who want to use it seems a decent compromise; but I think players who use it are inherently going to be at an advantage against the AI.

Have you read my Ai. post on Joe user forums I would like your input. The galciv equivalent to this is probably where the computer averages what you do for so many turns per turn per game. Not to hold against you, but to dictate on how it plays against you. Game two had a nice civilization screen, and espionage for helping it to do this if the programmers decided to implement this.

Actually, no, they don't. I don't get paid and haven't in years. And like I said in the post, if you bothered to read, I said it is my game and ALSO your game.

I am motivated to make things the players like but not at the cost of turning something I've spent much of my life on into something I dislike.

And of course making the game do something that you like is easier than doing something that - according to the Forums - lots of other people would like (but not you) simply because (if the planet wheel argument is any example and boy it seems like one!) you'll never get 100% or anything like that happy. So do you piss off Group A or Group B? Hmmmm. Decisions, decisions. Of course, you go with the group who's ideas/wants match your own closest but without rubbing the other groups noses in it.

I'd like to know the process by which you decide which thing gets put into which update. I appreciate your observation that embarrassment is a bigger motivator than annoyance (the embarassment being how bad the AI handled it's planets, the annoyance being how the AI's ships would mosey into your ZOC and you couldn't yell at them for it), but what I'm asking is a situation where you have two embarrassments. What's the criteria that decides which one gets fixed first?

I got the 1.4 update a little while ago, and started playing the game and couldn't find the, Govern Planet - 'Spending Wheel'. After looking a bit, I was disappointed to see that it was gone. I use it all the time when playing - especially on my key planets, and really do not like that it has been removed.

After reading the posts on the forum, I can see that there are camps that support its removal, and those that don't. I am a relatively new player to the Gal Civ universe. I got the game earlier this year, and find it really fun and interesting. As such, I don't have the perspective of the wheel not being there, and so from my experience using the game, it has been an integral part of playing. I like the compromise proposed to have it in a future update as an option you can toggle on and off. It would seem to satisfy both groups of people. Or if it ends up coming back as a Civ Trait, then I can use it that way too.

Just wanted to provide player feedback toward supporting the provision of the spending wheel as an optional feature in a future update. I'm appreciative the Devs consider feedback and incorporate that into their decision making.

Until that update is available, I am glad I made a backup of my earlier version of the game so that I can go back to using it.

Idea about the wheel. What if a brake or governor (mechanical model, not person/office/leader) is part of the wheel? Only allow it to be adjusted a small amount each turn (or five turns, yada). This way, rapid, radical, gamey/exploit y moves blocked.

do you mind if I borrow that? I think this would greatly balance the control trait if it was put in place for races that don't have it.

Please do. edit: looks like I should read all the threads before commenting in any thread. This is all discussed in depth in another galciv3 thread.

I don't think the point of his post was about the method by which you derive earnings from SD.....

I don't derive earnings from SD either way. My personal income comes from my various investment portfolios. GalCiv being a hit or not has no impact on me one way or the other financially.

So the "Do what I want, I'm your boss because I bought your game" line is not going to move me.

There is no path that will make everyone happy. What I can say is that the game has to be balanced to ensure that the numbers that are generated fit within the game design.

A planet generating 2000 tech per turn is way way outside what was ever contemplated. Similarly, a system that forces players to micro every planet to this degree (because if you can go get 10X more output from a planet through micro management then you absolutely feel compelled to do so) is not a good system.

What I can say is that the game has to be balanced to ensure that the numbers that are generated fit within the game design.

And that is a good justification for the shift to focuses, because it's just about the only thing that they do better than the wheel did.

Output needed nerfing to bring it into line with costs. No-one in their right mind could say otherwise. There were a lot of ways to achieve it - reducing output bonuses on buildings; increasing all costs by 100% or so, a new mechanic like coercion, or limiting our ability to interact with the economy. Unfortunately, the final option is the worst choice, since it was guaranteed to cause outcry in ways that the others probably wouldn't.

Most players would have noticed a big increase in production costs but would've just thought 'oh, stuff costs more now. OK'. The same would've been true with a general ouput bonus nerf; people knew it needed to happen and weren't likely to cause a big fuss. Introducing the coercion mechanic would probably have seen general approval, since new stuff is always nice (especially since it will allow the removal of the unpopular and ineffectual LEP system). Ripping out a major chunk of our ability to control the economy, on the other hand, does nothing to fix the underlying problem (that production bonuses are completely out of scale with the pricing model) and annoys a lot of players because removing the player's toys is just as nasty as adding new ones is nice.

Just out of curiosity: let's say my target is a superdreadnaught in the largest possible hull, fit with decent drives/range/defense... and the best possible weapons of one category (let's say beam weapons).

What would be the approximate target time (in turns) it should take a player to reach this goal? Let's say on a huge map.

Because it took me some 300ish turns, and that's WITH extensive wheel microing, a ton of econ starbases and research optimizations -- resulting (in the last stages) in a research output of upwards of 20k/turn total. I'm not saying that it can't be done faster... But yeah, 300 turns is a long time, I played this game for 1-2 weeks easily.

You say the research levels which were possible prior to 1.4 were a problem and were nerfed because research was too high.

Ah best patch for a while. Been waiting for something to happen to all those boring beeline 1 decision specialization planets. More room for making the plays now instead of making the game totally dependant on the starting location.

Frogboy, has a point there. Making a stable line is very important in a game (in any game) and thats why the wheel is gone.

If you think about the different ways to play galciv3, what will the players look for, in that game ?

(some like to explore and try different paths, but as soon someone finds a way to the best path and the fastest, then everybody will take that path, if they dont they will be left behind and their experience of the game will be lacking in diversity. (it will turn into a race!, to the end of the line, but what then ?)

you will think somthing around these thoughts . (have a goal now, i know how to get there faster than anyone)

But if you think that way, then what about the Things you are passing by, the experience you will have ? if you just stopped and took a look around you.

what will you see, is the world galciv is trying to represent, a world of possibilities. (a Journey trought experience and exiting ideals of what is possible.

Without it. (it has no soul and thats what makes it wonderfull)

(galciv 3 that is )

From my own perspectiv, i wish People can have a bit more thought, put into their replies and above all else tolerance about others opinion.

(be a bit more reasonable and open to others thoughts and perspective)

In a sense thats what you call wisdom, or practically developed human being that has learned a lot from the world

Well anyway, if the success or failure of GCIII doesn't matter to you financially (or if SD's success or failure is of no consequence to your personal wealth), or if customer opinions don't matter why bother posting or reading the forums? Just tell people "this is how it will be" and then lock the forum. Heck, just have ID do it. No sense it dealing with the whining entitlement masses. No one needs that kind of stress.

I don't derive earnings from SD either way. My personal income comes from my various investment portfolios. GalCiv being a hit or not has no impact on me one way or the other financially.

So the "Do what I want, I'm your boss because I bought your game" line is not going to move me.

There is no path that will make everyone happy. What I can say is that the game has to be balanced to ensure that the numbers that are generated fit within the game design.

A planet generating 2000 tech per turn is way way outside what was ever contemplated. Similarly, a system that forces players to micro every planet to this degree (because if you can go get 10X more output from a planet through micro management then you absolutely feel compelled to do so) is not a good system.

Well anyway, if the success or failure of GCIII doesn't matter to you financially (or if SD's success or failure is of no consequence to your personal wealth), or if customer opinions don't matter why bother posting or reading the forums? Just tell people "this is how it will be" and then lock the forum. Heck, just have ID do it. No sense it dealing with the whining entitlement masses. No one needs that kind of stress.

I would have thought trolling was beneath you.

If I didn't care about player opinions we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

There is more to life than financial motivation.

The reason we removed the wheel in the first place was because we were listening to customer opinion. Before we took out the wheel, the players were complaining about the micro management of large empires and the wheel was top on the list. In addition, we got saved games where people were able to create planets generating thousands of a given resource per turn due to the wheel.

Getting rid of the wheel was a no-brainer. However, we do recognize that some players really like this system so we will add it as a racial trait (well first we'll update it so with a prefs.ini change you can have it so we can put that into pre 1.5).

I enjoy posting on the forums, I always have

And BTW, THIS discussion comes up over and over again: Here is the post I made in GalCiv II in response to GalCiv II players being mad about some feature change: http://forums.galciv2.com/312130/

Not trolling, just pointing out what I see as contradictions. I personally don't mind the wheel change. Having worked in a corporate environment for many years, I've become cynical, I've seen the different faces executives use internally and with the public. Sure there is more to life than financial considerations, but in the business world, only one thing matters. Corporations (publicly held or private) exist for one purpose. To maximize shareholder (owner) value. Anything else is the responsibility of the marketing department.

You wrote that post in 2008. Haven't the circumstances and dynamics, and priorities of the company changed?

If I didn't care about player opinions we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

There is more to life than financial motivation.

The reason we removed the wheel in the first place was because we were listening to customer opinion. Before we took out the wheel, the players were complaining about the micro management of large empires and the wheel was top on the list. In addition, we got saved games where people were able to create planets generating thousands of a given resource per turn due to the wheel.

Getting rid of the wheel was a no-brainer. However, we do recognize that some players really like this system so we will add it as a racial trait (well first we'll update it so with a prefs.ini change you can have it so we can put that into pre 1.5).

I enjoy posting on the forums, I always have

And BTW, THIS discussion comes up over and over again: Here is the post I made in GalCiv II in response to GalCiv II players being mad about some feature change: http://forums.galciv2.com/312130/

Not trolling, just pointing out what I see as contradictions. I personally don't mind the wheel change. Having worked in a corporate environment for many years, I've become cynical, I've seen the different faces executives use internally and with the public. Sure there is more to life than financial considerations, but in the business world, only one thing matters. Corporations (publicly held or private) exist for one purpose. To maximize shareholder (owner) value. Anything else is the responsibility of the marketing department.

You wrote that post in 2008. Haven't the circumstances and dynamics, and priorities of the company changed?

You're kind of presenting a false binary, though - between 'the customer paid for the game and so is king of the world' and 'the customer is an idiot with a wallet and should be treated as such'. Brad's not saying customer opinions don't matter; he's just saying that just because they do matter doesn't mean they're the only thing that matters, as people saying 'I pay your wages' are basically suggesting. I get the feeling he views the game's ongoing development more as a negotiation between a collection of various stakeholders - the modders, the players, the dev team, the finance department etc.

For what it's worth, the 'We pay your wages' argument sucks anyway. There's good, solid reasons getting rid of the wheel was a bad idea (just as there's good, solid reasons getting rid of it was a good idea, too). Full, frank discussion of the flaws of an idea is usually the best way to convince someone not to do it, rather than stamping your foot and saying 'you took my money so you should do what I want'. It's the modern day equivalent of appealing to the authority of God to win your argument.

Not trolling, just pointing out what I see as contradictions. I personally don't mind the wheel change. Having worked in a corporate environment for many years, I've become cynical, I've seen the different faces executives use internally and with the public. Sure there is more to life than financial considerations, but in the business world, only one thing matters. Corporations (publicly held or private) exist for one purpose. To maximize shareholder (owner) value. Anything else is the responsibility of the marketing department.

You wrote that post in 2008. Haven't the circumstances and dynamics, and priorities of the company changed?

Just out of curiosity: let's say my target is a superdreadnaught in the largest possible hull, fit with decent drives/range/defense... and the best possible weapons of one category (let's say beam weapons).

What would be the approximate target time (in turns) it should take a player to reach this goal? Let's say on a huge map.Because it took me some 300ish turns, and that's WITH extensive wheel microing, a ton of econ starbases and research optimizations -- resulting (in the last stages) in a research output of upwards of 20k/turn total. I'm not saying that it can't be done faster... But yeah, 300 turns is a long time, I played this game for 1-2 weeks easily.

You say the research levels which were possible prior to 1.4 were a problem and were nerfed because research

I don't want to interrupt your discussion on Frogboys portfolio (well actually I want to, I think it is really quite pointless)...

Would it be possible to get some input on the points I asked about earlier? I'm honestly curious what you're opinion is on this subject, Frogboy.